|
Playing with fire: Paramedic smoking dismissals seem draconian
In drug dependency testing, employers often offer diversion programs for its staff to go through
By Art Hsieh
Oh, wow.
Like my fellow columnist Kelly's rant on the rule — written before these dismissals — I am troubled by the labor action taken against the line medics for having failed a nicotine blood test.
Not knowing all of the facts, but were they provided due process? Is there a danger to the public for the employees for using nicotine? Is there a similar rule for having trace ethanol or prescription drugs in a random drug test?
It's a bit difficult to pass full judgment. But, if the goal to have nonsmoking employees is to help reduce health care premiums, this is like trying to hit a nail on the head with a pile driver.
In drug dependency testing, employers often offer diversion programs for its staff to go through, before any further employment action is taken.
It would seem rather draconian to actually terminate an employee for a medical condition, without any assistance from the employer to help the employee overcome the dependency.
Perhaps the help was offered, and it didn't work out. It could be that the employees were provided due process in overcoming a problem that would keep them from being employed by the agency.
Lest there be no confusion, I hope that the staff can overcome a medical situation that truly endangers their health.
But to be terminated for the legal activity would seem to point to an unfair policy that has little to stand on.
Comments
The comments below are member-generated and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of EMS1.com or its staff. If you cannot see comments, try disabling privacy and ad blocking plugins in your browser.
Skip Kirkwood Tuesday, December 20, 2011 5:01:28 PM This is a county-wide policy in Volusia County. The employees had notice of the requirements before they applied for employment with the county. For months (it may be a year now).
They weren't fired for a "medical condition." They were fired for violating a condition of their employment. There are plenty of legal activities that you can be fired for - for example, try carrying your legal, concealed-carry handgun while working on an ambulance in most EMS agencies. 
Matthew Monk Wednesday, December 21, 2011 5:29:20 PM Well Skip whats next? Anyone over body fat % of 25% will be terminated? You are an idiot! BTW, the CCW thing you will lose...state law trumps your County Policy. And heaven forbid someone has a federal CCW permit.
You wanna tell people not to smoke at work fine, I'll go with it. But make them pay higher premiums if they choose to be a smoker on their own time, not fire them especially in this economy. The person who saw fit to fire these folks are DICKS!
Kevin Davis Wednesday, December 21, 2011 6:07:47 PM Skip: You're kidding, right? These people weren't fired for smoking in a rig while on the clock. So let's make this a more relevant comparison. Paramedics can't conceal and carry in a rig while on the clock. How about on their own time in their own vehicle, on the street or in defense of property? Answer is they can. But judging by the fact you chose to bring up the ever popular gun issue, I'm sure that's a next step. You and the rest of the anti-gunners will be trying to tell employees they aren't permitted to carry and conceal while on their own time. Then it will be no ownership of firearms period. 
Ty Stinson Thursday, December 22, 2011 10:43:17 AM Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the county buy out the private EMS service these medics worked for? So to say that they new this condition when they applied would be a faulted statement.
Dru Ross Friday, December 23, 2011 9:24:00 AM Matthew Monk ...on the CCW. I hate to break it to you but most states will not allow you to carry on the job even with a concealed carry permit ( I should know. I have one ) . If they do in your state then I need to move there.
Jake Stein Friday, December 23, 2011 10:35:53 AM Ty Stinson EVAC already had a "no hire" for smokers policy since 2009. The county has had theirs since 1989. EVAC has known for a long time it would either be taken over by the county of dissolved. The county did them a favor and saved 173 jobs. But, if maybe they will go with all fire transport next year and sacrifice the other 170 because of these 3 and whatever other problems the county took over with EVAC and their lawsuits. 
Kelly Grayson Saturday, December 24, 2011 6:09:03 AM Point of order, Skip:
The fired employees were not hired with a no-smoking policy as a condition of their employment. They were employees of another company taken over by Volusia County, a company that had no such rule in place when they were hired. Absent any sort of help with smoking cessation efforts from their employers at Volusia County, I can't help but see their termination as unfair.
I'm not totally sympathetic to their plight. They willfully violated a policy of their employer, but I agree with Art's point - the policy was patently unfair in the first place.
And your concealed carry analogy would be appropriate if you were comparing the behavior to, say, smoking on duty or in the rigs. But comparing carrying a weapon on duty against company policy to smoking while off duty is comparing apples to oranges. The analogy doesn't work. Skip Kirkwood Saturday, December 24, 2011 6:55:51 PM The analogy, in context, was something that you have a legal right to do ordinarily, but which can be restricted by an employer as a matter of policy. I wasn't parsing on duty and off duty.
Robert Martin Wednesday, January 04, 2012 8:20:20 PM That being said, Skip, these employees were fired for something that they were doing off-duty. From a legal perspective, if they had smoked on-duty, it would be appropriate to terminate them. But at least one of them smoked off-duty. (The mother who smoked a cigar at a friend's party). Terminating an employee for something legal that they do off-duty is a dangerous precedent, to say the least. Would you feel it appropriate for Wake County to fire employees for carrying a concealed weapon legally when off-duty? What about drinking legally off-duty? What about eating fast food? This policy may save the company on insurance, and it may be appealing from a hygiene and health standpoint. However, I feel it is legally inappropriate to start terminating employees for doing what's legal and not considered publicly inappropriate off-duty. If you want total control over an employee's life, you're going to need to pay them for it.
Charles Phillips Tuesday, December 20, 2011 5:31:33 PM I think this is a good policy, I wish my service would adopt it. Being public health team members, EMS personnel should set a good health example to the public. Nothing angers me more than to see a group of paramedics (in unform) smoking in public! I would venture to say that Volusia County's health insurance that is provided for their employees will see a decrease in rates, saving the taxpayers money. It's a shame that all of those receiving public health assistance would not face the same rules. In the long run, private insurance rates would go down and we would see a marked decrease in health related problems connected to cigarette smoking. Smoking, like driving your private vehicle is a priviledge, not a right. 
Tim Urquhart Tuesday, December 20, 2011 11:16:35 PM The problem you run into is that when a company starts dictating what someone is allowed to do while not at work or even on call. After discussing this with a few different Union heads, the only recourse that the company could have is to charge those who choose to smoke outside of work higher insurance costs, as determined by the underwriter of the insurance company. Again, this is not a dictatorship country where companies can tell you what you can do outside of work time
This case has trouble written all over it, and I feel for the tax payers of Volusia County when the judge passes down his settlement.
Erica Williams Wednesday, December 21, 2011 1:12:47 PM If it angers you then dont watch. Maybe they should be drinking instead. Cigerattes or non moid altering. They pose absolutely no risk to others if you are smoking outside. And in yhis case the medic wasnt even smokimg on duty. Where is it gonna end people you continue to give up every right we have one at a time. tobacco is legal and an employer can not impose any rule upon an employee unless they are on the clock or ut violates the laws of the local state or federal government. In fact by taking this much needed underpaid ems person ofg the street you just killed at least 6 people. So I ask do you think his smoking at home killed 6 people? I wish you people would appreciate what we sacrifice for your safety and be quiet.
Meredith Ryan Konieczny Friday, December 23, 2011 9:00:25 AM @ Charles, if you want us to be a good health example, then we shouldn't be over-weight either.
Garth Prior Friday, December 23, 2011 9:12:32 AM Charles, Driving is a priviledge, because a license is required. You do not need a license to smoke. It is legal, and the gov't and idiots with your mentallity need to stay out of my personal life. I suppose you think that ambulance personnel should not be seen at fast food restaurants either. What a terrible image this must portray to the public. I bet in an emergency the public couldn't care less, as long as their medical needs are met, and they are cared for, as they should be. Dru Ross Friday, December 23, 2011 9:18:07 AM They were fired due to the fact that when the medics signed up for their insurance that year they stated that they did NOT smoke and thus got a lower insurance rate. Insurance companies do that all of the time. They take your word for it, all the while knowing that if you go to the doctor and get blood tested then they will get those results showing you smoke. Those who don't smoke pay a much lower rate (ours is several hundred less a year). The medics were actually fired because they committed insurance fraud by lying to the company and that is illegal, and so they should have lost their jobs. Charles Phillips Friday, December 23, 2011 9:41:03 AM Meredith- I agree totally! I work with a guy (he's also a smoker) who everytime he works a particularly stressful call acts like he's going to drop over from a massive MI. I really don't want to have to worry about taking care of my patient and partner when I run a call. How about you? Charles Phillips Friday, December 23, 2011 9:51:23 AM Garth- It's idiots like you that endanger others health. I don't want people like you around me (cause I'm sure you smell like an ashtray) much less smoking around me. You have no right to endanger others. And you're right ambulances should be at fast food places; it sets a terrible example. 
Nita Ostroff Friday, December 23, 2011 5:13:57 PM Meredith Ryan Konieczny It looks like Charles thinks he is in fine health and not overweight, from reading his posts. Charles Phillips Friday, December 23, 2011 10:05:23 PM Nita- I do stay in good shape. I'm nearly 60 years old and can run with the 20 somethings any day (I jog or powerwalk at least 2 miles a day). Do you know how you become a "mature" paramedic (I don't like to use the word old!)? You eat right, get exercise, get plenty of rest, avoid alcohol, DO NOT SMOKE, wear seat belts and obey traffic laws, and avoid risky behavior. I'm not planning on slowing down anytime soon! As long as I can stay in shape, I'll probably be giving parapups hell about their smoking for another 10 years or so.
Al Pacifico Tuesday, December 20, 2011 5:34:08 PM Could it be they have a heart lung policy where if you develop cancer or other illness due to the nature of the job it would be covered? But if you smoke you would not be able to prove an illness was job related? 
Julie Colwell Tuesday, December 20, 2011 5:35:24 PM I can't fathom why this action was taken against the employees it was rather.
harsh. What did the company offer for its employees to help them quit. Julie Colwell Tuesday, December 20, 2011 5:40:36 PM Its just smoking something that Americans have done for.
years at least they aren't taking legal narcotics found in a lot.
of prescription pills. Smoking is not going to make them incompetent. 
Dave Konig Tuesday, December 20, 2011 5:55:42 PM I can understand the no smoking policy while on duty, but off duty? That seems a bit of a stretch in my book.
Funny how we quickly forget that nicotine was, at one time, prescribed by doctors as a treatment. 
Greg Friese Tuesday, December 20, 2011 6:01:18 PM But unlikely that smoking was ever a condition of employment.
Sheila Roche Walz Tuesday, December 20, 2011 8:50:41 PM So was labotomy's and look what that did for Rose Kennedy! Sheila Roche Walz Tuesday, December 20, 2011 8:51:52 PM Lmao! I agree with you no one should be allowed to tell you that you cant smoke when you off duty! This country is going nuts!!! Skip Kirkwood Wednesday, December 21, 2011 3:22:32 AM Sure. So was opium, marijuana, and a variety of other things that are now illegal. Times change - and employment is a voluntary state. Nobody has a "right" to any particular job - particularly when the rule in question applies to all county employees. Erica Williams Wednesday, December 21, 2011 1:15:14 PM Its to save money so the fd can buy the newest 500000 pos they never use on actual calls pr so the local politicians get big fat raises n their special interest projects funded.
Wally Loney Tuesday, December 20, 2011 6:37:53 PM Basically, good people were fired so the company could save money. The policy was not made so their health would be better, although it almost certainly would be. This was implemented only so the company could save money on insurance. That seems pretty low to me. As for the fired smokers, there are lots of paramedic jobs out there. You don't have to work for purely greedy jerks. 
Londa Hobbs Tuesday, December 20, 2011 6:49:22 PM Why is our personal activities on our time have to do with our job. Unless it is illegal. Stress interferes with our job and can cause many medical issues. Are we raising cost for it as well. Charles Phillips Tuesday, December 20, 2011 9:32:45 PM Londa, I would like to be able to smoke pot recreationally when I'm off duty but do not because it would show up in a random drug test. A rule is a rule. If you want your job, either comply with the rules or face being unemployed.
Wapini Heron Tuesday, December 20, 2011 6:56:01 PM Not I, smokers might smoke at home but the smell comes in with their clothing and hair.
I'm highly allergic to tobacco and don't need this. 
Micky Finn Tuesday, December 20, 2011 7:45:50 PM Rules are in place, and if they are adults, and know the rules, then they have to accept the punishment as well. If you don't like the rules, don't work there. They didn't ask you to come to work, you went to them for the job! 
Bob Sullivan Tuesday, December 20, 2011 8:04:24 PM Instead of firing, I think it is fair for the county to not provide health insurance to smokers. Tim Urquhart Tuesday, December 20, 2011 11:21:06 PM Or to arrange for those who choose to continue to smoke for them to pay higher premiums that would be determined by the insurance underwriter. The increased risk those employees present to the insurance company is definitely worth a little more money. A hospital I used to work for told us outright that if you smoke, you will pay us more in insurance premiums. Simple choice to a seemingly simple problem which has been complicated by a poorly written county policy that any 1st year law student could have pointed out. Charles Phillips Wednesday, December 21, 2011 4:42:25 PM Tim- Unfortunately, most employers purchase group insurance for their employees. So a strict no smoking policy shows the insurance companies that their clients are serious about lowering their staff's health risk factors. It makes perfect economic sense.
As I have said, those on Medicaid should be required to change their habits. If they're too poor to afford medical insurance, they're too poor to afford vices such as cigarettes, alcohol, and illict drugs. But unfortunately many of those folks "game" the system and most taxpayers get stuck with the tab. 
Jeffrey Lovetro Tuesday, December 20, 2011 8:47:37 PM The question is where does it stop. Where is the line drawn from those of us who bust our butts on the street and the crap we deal with on a daily basis being told how to live or lives? If the no smoking policy is in place to create a healthier work environment or because of health insurance reasons then what's to stop that county from then saying you can't eat fatty foods? No more McDonald's or Burger king. Whose to tell them you can no longer engage in ANY activity that could later cause a cardiac condition, diabetes or hypertension. No more caffeine, alcohol, red meat, or table salt. No contract should ever take these freedoms from you. Not from one of the more stressful jobs around. You can say it's only smoking.... well guess what. It won't end there, you can be sure of that. They may be guilty little pleasures that are not good for us, but it can sometimes it gets us through a bad day. 
Peter Scarborough Wednesday, December 21, 2011 3:21:41 AM I agree Jeff, and the issue is not smoking per se, but rather the right to privacy. If they can say that employees cant smoke, what is next? Employees cant drink anything but spring water, cant eat red meat, etc. Skip Kirkwood Wednesday, December 21, 2011 4:49:18 PM It will stop when there are not enough people who WILL comply with the employer's requirements - it's called the free market, the law of supply and demand. I've studied questions like this for a long time, and as long as we don't have slavery (as long as employment is a voluntary relationship between employer and employee) then an employer has the right to impose whatever condition he, she, or it desires. The employee's remedy is to decline to provide services to the employer. "RIghts" are things that protect individuals from the government acting as the government (not as an employer). I think the "entitled generation" has been heard from!
PS - Find me a "right to privacy" in the constitution!
Michael Adams Tuesday, December 20, 2011 9:11:54 PM Glad I don't work in Florida, don't smoke, but to get fired for that what bull shit. EMS in general is sure starting to suck, low pay, bad health insurance with high rates and this is there excuse for raising our health insurance rates (smoking) what a crock of shit. 
Drew Wheresmyclipboard Posner Tuesday, December 20, 2011 11:57:27 PM I think your arguement missed the mark. You say that in drug dependancy testing, employees are offered the opportunity of a drug diversion program instead of termination. This policy is not always true, and most places I've seen offer the opportunity for this up until the point you test positive. The other arguement about smoking being a legal activity is also off. There are many legal activities that would lead to termination, such as drinking alcohol, using a bluetooth to talk on a cell phone, etc.
I definitely agree that termination is excessive. It would seem that the article is missing some information. I would like to know how they proved that the positive nicotine results are from smoking, does this rule apply to all county employees, or just EMS, how much warning was given to the employees, and were they told they face termination if caught. My final question is this, 1 employee said she smoked 1 cigar causing positive results? Can 1 cigar cause positive results, and if so, then couldn't second hand smoke also cause positive results? This is a very flawed policy. 
George Lindgren Wednesday, December 21, 2011 4:12:35 AM Where does this end? What's next? Potato chips? Pizza? Dru Ross Friday, December 23, 2011 9:19:03 AM They were fired due to the fact that when the medics signed up for their insurance that year they stated that they did NOT smoke and thus got a lower insurance rate. Insurance companies do that all of the time. They take your word for it, all the while knowing that if you go to the doctor and get blood tested then they will get those results showing you smoke. Those who don't smoke pay a much lower rate (ours is several hundred less a year). The medics were actually fired because they committed insurance fraud by lying to the company and that is illegal, and so they should have lost their jobs. Drew Wheresmyclipboard Posner Friday, December 23, 2011 9:33:11 AM I agree that it sounds like they broke the policy and were aware of the consequences. It just seems that the consequences arre extremely excessive. As george said, what is next? Alcohol use can lead to liver failure, eating sweets can lead to diabetes and obesity, fatty foods lead to obesity, sedentary lifestyles lead to obesity, walking can have a risk of injury if you fall. Where does it end? At worst, the y should have faced higher premiums. Jake Stein Friday, December 23, 2011 9:35:46 AM Been in place with EVAC since 2009 for new hires. Programs offered for smoking cessation. Policy for uniformed in the country and in many other counties since 1989. Firefighters must certify they are smoke free for 1 year at time of application. Isn't it time EMS steps up and takes some responsibility when they want the same respect as Law and Fire?
Dennis McPeak Friday, December 23, 2011 10:27:02 AM Dru Ross Do you know this for a fact? I'm not being argumentative, truly curious. Does the company offer two different rates depending on whether you smoke or not? If this information is true, the entire discussion is null and void in my opinion. With that being said, i still am skeptic about allowing governing bodies dictate our personal behavior while not representing that faction.
Equip 2 Conceal Firearms Group Wednesday, December 21, 2011 3:04:58 AM If you have any questions regarding the CWP law or training contact www.e2c.us or 1-866-371-6111 and the Instructors at Equip 2 Conceal will be happy to help you. 
Mark Buie Wednesday, December 21, 2011 5:23:17 AM Looking in from the outside this sounds like small town politics at its best. Evidently this company does not have the trouble finding paramedics that other systems in TN have. 
Mike S. Dumond Sr Wednesday, December 21, 2011 5:49:16 AM It has nothing to do with admin's concern about anyone's health, and everything to do with their having CONTROL over others private lives. Some people thrive on that. And, who better to pick on than those subhuman smokers. 
Cindy S. LeDonne Wednesday, December 21, 2011 6:17:21 AM If they violated a condition of employment, it doesn't matter which one it was. I'm curious...are they allowed to consume alcohol at home? Alcohol causes a plethora of medical conditions which are very costly as well. Where is the line? or is there one? 
Luz Marina Rosenfeld Sunday, February 12, 2012 11:47:56 AM Hi I will like to add you as my friend in my two groups, Blindness of america and optic atrophy,
Scott Bates Wednesday, December 21, 2011 8:35:03 AM Tobacco use is legal. Nicotine usage in any form is legal. Affidavit or no affidavit, restricting employment based upon a legal activity that does not interfere with said emplyment is a violation of civil rights. These individuals might be using nicotine supplements such as patches or gum, or they may be "vap"ing meaning the use of electronic cigarettes... Either way, if attorneys or law firms are not fighting to represent these folks in a lawsuit PRO BONO just to get a legal precedent, something is wrong with this country. It always fascinates me how band wagons will reach an obsurd point before beginning the swing in the other direction. That being said, I think most realize that tobacco use is not as healthy as not using tobacco, but it is simply not the employers business. Skip Kirkwood Friday, December 23, 2011 4:07:19 PM Scott, you make that statement with such confidence. It is simply NOT TRUE. Find me the civil rights statute that protects smoking. If you're going to make statements, fine, but at least (for the benefit of the people who read what you right) make statements that are factually correct (not that you just wish were correct). You have the right not to be discriminated against based on your race, color, creed, national origin, religion, or disability. Short list, my friend, and it does not include smoking cigarettes! Scott Bates Saturday, December 24, 2011 9:47:41 AM Skip,
Thank you for replying... Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. A civil right does not necessarily need a specific statute in order to be identified as such. Most are identified on a case by case basis, based upon their relation to actual law and/or the infringement upon the civil rights of others. Its true that "civil rights" will normally refer to discrimination based upon race, sex, religion, etc... but a broader meaning might say that you have equal protection under the law, so personal freedoms should not be discriminated against either. Disallowing personal freedoms either by discrimination from employment or a law itself begins to border on fascism. If an activity were to break a law, then an employer would have a case. Barring that, does said activity infringe (truly so) upon the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of others? Smoking is nasty.... smokeless tobacco is nasty... That is my opinion... That is my hang up... If I had to breath second hand smoke, or look at nasty tobacco spit, then MY civil rights were becoming infringed upon. Barring that, it is NONE of my bussiness whatsoever what you do with your spare time. It you happen to have nicotine in your system because you are trying hard to keep from using tobacco by using an arguably healthier means... Lozenges, gum, e-cigarettes, etc... Then I applaude you for doing so, and once again.... IT IS NONE OF MY BUSSINESS... (Forgive me for being grandiose. I'm trying to be emphatic.)
Many here make good points regarding things against which employers COULD further discriminate. I'm sorry... I agree that smoking or dipping is bad for you, but that's not for an employer to say.
Thank you again for replying Skip...
Mel Vostry Wednesday, December 21, 2011 9:49:08 AM Charles, you need to re-think your statements. You drive on a PUBLIC highway and every move you make impacts those who also use the highway. You can smoke in your house or on your back porch. If smoking doesn't impact my work performance the employer is crossing a line into my private life. Smoking is not a priviledge. You are angered by medics smoking. Do you feel as strongly about medics that are 100 pounds overweight? No second helpings at the dinner table. No burgers and beer while watching football. Burgers are a priviledge you know. Charles Phillips Wednesday, December 21, 2011 5:25:50 PM Mel- For your information, I comply with all laws on the public highways. Yes, it disgusts me to see morbidly obese medics (some are severely stressed when the going gets tough!!) because they endanger my safety and I'm always afraid that they're going to be another patient when I'm on a call with them. Like I said in my first post, EMS personnel are public health workers, we need to set a good example to the public. I wouldn't ask those around me to eat a healthy diet, not smoke, drink in moderation (and stay off of the roads when drinking), get regular exercise, and get regular health check ups, if I didn't do them myself. I'm a 60 year old paramedic and have been in EMS for 33 years. You know how to become a "mature" medic? Do those things for yourself I listed above. If an employer cares enough about their staff, to mandate healthy habits and stop smoking, I say kudos to that employer. Smokers' right to smoke end at my nose and I can't stand to smell someone who has been smoking! If they can't comply with their service's policies, then they're not serious about working for that service.
Firecareerassistance Fca Wednesday, December 21, 2011 12:59:38 PM Weather we like it or not this is becoming the trend we are seeing with many of our job postings at Fire Career Assistance. Departments can not afford for Firefighters or EMS professionals not in the best of shape, taking time off for smoke related illnesses or the insurance burden associated with smoking. The jobs are hazardous enough little lone adding smoking. If your looking for a job in the fire service or EMS field be prepared to see more of these requirements in the future with tight budgets. Looking for additional advice such as this or job openings? Visit FireCareerAssist dot com.
www.firecareerassist.com 
Scott Bernier Wednesday, December 21, 2011 2:10:39 PM Everyone who thinks this is a good policy might want to recheck their opinion when employers start regulating your cholesterol, your weight, or anything else that THEY deem would save them money on insurance costs. I am not a fan of regulating off duty activities that are legal and able to pass the "newspaper front page" test. 
Ben Fulkerson Wednesday, December 21, 2011 3:40:58 PM Reminds me of "Horrible Bosses","Bobby: "Oh yeah, we've got to trim some of the fat around here."
Kurt: "What do you mean by trim the fat?"
Bobby: "I want you to fire the fat people."
Kurt: "What?"
Bobby: "They're lazy and they're slow and they make me sad to look at."".
Oh it's coming, the insurance companies have already found ways to raise your premiums based on BMI , businesses will jump on board soon enough. Now they just need a blood test to determine how much ice cream you consume on a regular basis. 
Eric Rieschick Wednesday, December 21, 2011 7:01:16 PM Smokers have rights to, but in this day and age this country is taking away my freedom as a smoker. I understand that it is expensive for the insurance companies but smoking is still legal and does not affect any one except for me especially since I have to be outside to smoke. 
Patricia Plankey Ramos Thursday, December 22, 2011 5:53:58 AM I think everyone who agrees with this disgusting illegal removal of our rights as an American citizen int he land of the free should move to another country. Whether people smoke or not, it doesn't matter. EMS has a rough enough job with every call being a potential hazard to them. We all risk life and limb every time we roll. We get puked on, infected, hit, hurt, deal with loss, child abuse, burn victims, you name it. Unless we do Bad Medicine, LEAVE US ALONE and let us do what we do best. The job is tough enough without stupidity thrown in via micromanaging rules. 
Scott Filkins Friday, December 23, 2011 8:57:17 AM where do you draw the line. perhaps everyone is ordered to run 5 miles a day or you get three days off with a written warning for being seen in McDonalds. Ever think that it is possible post traumatic stress not addressed from previous calls is why these employees need nicotine as a form of self medication. I see company weigh ins, pinch tests and physical conditioning tests in the future. while there is a physical side to our job where do we draw the line. how about lifting 200 lbs. by by to most of the women and half the men. how about firing everyone with a family history of cardiac or cancer. better yet how about laying off all employees with special needs kids. 
Peter Tullgren Friday, December 23, 2011 9:09:05 AM I was recently in St. Petersburg Russia this past fall and I saw 2 medics smoking inside the ambulance...I wish I had my camera ready but it went by fast....As for this situation, my belief is let them smoke at home while off duty, but no smoking while on duty...... 
Michael Sluder Friday, December 23, 2011 9:12:43 AM Charles are you insane. No offense but there is no way this policy is fair. Ok tell you what I will let you. Fir me for smoking but as long as you get for drinking coke cause it diabetes. Oh you drink diet well those chemicals cause cancer. Let me fire you cause you eat red meat well hell that's linked to heart failure. Look bottom line everything you do causes some kind of health risk. And as far as ander to see somethi. Michael Sluder Friday, December 23, 2011 9:14:40 AM I ment anger to see something I'm angered that you would even make that comment. Everybody does something that someone else doesn't like but guesss what it is america we have that right. 
Michelle Battey Friday, December 23, 2011 9:17:06 AM Seriously what's next? Getting fired for pulling a positive caffiene test? Dru Ross Friday, December 23, 2011 9:17:14 AM They were fired due to the fact that when the medics signed up for their insurance that year they stated that they did NOT smoke and thus got a lower insurance rate. Insurance companies do that all of the time. They take your word for it, all the while knowing that if you go to the doctor and get blood tested then they will get those results showing you smoke. Those who don't smoke pay a much lower rate (ours is several hundred less a year). The medics were actually fired because they committed insurance fraud by lying to the company and that is illegal, and so they should have lost their jobs. Jake Stein Friday, December 23, 2011 9:30:17 AM Your attitude seems rather ridiculous since in parts of your state you can not smoke on some city streets without getting a ticket and you can be denied housing by a landlord not renewing your lease when an apartment building goes smoke free.
Too bad more of the articles about EVAV and its past problems did not come to your knowledge or how the details of the change over. The better solution would have been for the FDs to have be given more transport capabilities.
EVAC knew they were either going to be dissovled or taken over for years. The last straw was in 2010. EVAC also has not hired smokers since October 2009. Smoking cessation programs were offered to the other employees. If the take over had not occurred those who continued to smoke would have been paying a higher premium.
3 employees out of 173 are still making excuses. It is hardly fair to complain about the 170 who have chosen not to smoke. The county did not have to take over this ambulance service. All 173 could have been applying for new jobs.
The county uniformed has been smoke free since 1989 along with several other uniformed services t/o Florida. Several hospitals have instituted this policy for ALL employees during the past few years. Some have nonmedical industries.
Why does EMS always want to be different and so behind when it comes to the promotion of health? There's also a double standard as seen in your comments and that of others here. If a patient is a frequent flier who smokers or obese, so many in EMS complain about being called out for their SELF INFLICTED diseases in the middle of the night.
EMS wants the respect same as others who wear a uniform but don't want to the higher standards that go along with it. 
Joseph Antrobus Friday, December 23, 2011 10:10:41 AM All I can say is it is legal for me to smoke. If they have these rules 1 pay me 24/7(don't tell me what to do when your not paying me)2 Make alcohol illegal to use 3 fast foods. I can go on and on about this list. So untill it is illegal for me to smoke my employer should have no say period. Nita Ostroff Friday, December 23, 2011 5:19:43 PM @Joseph Antrobus Joseph, I am 100% with what you say. If you want to control people 24/7, PAY them 24 7.
Roger Godbehere Friday, December 23, 2011 11:16:36 AM the thing is, it said they failed nicotine test, what if they were using a nicotine patch, there is no way to differenciate between the two. George Lindgren Friday, December 23, 2011 5:11:35 PM Stop trying to control other peoples' behavior to suit your own liking and couching it in legalese, condescension and PC bullshit. 
Maude Bryt Friday, December 23, 2011 5:58:16 PM Insanely over the limit. I don't smoke. I don't like smoke and I am allergic to smoke. As long as I am upwind, not married to you, or your parent, as long as I don't have to live in it or pay for it - it is not my province. We can have dinner, be friends, even perhaps share romance, etc etc. The end. OMG!! Sound of heel of hand smacking against forehead. aarrgghhh.
Frank Mitchell Saturday, December 24, 2011 5:08:28 AM This is going too far , If they were smoking on the rig , that's one thing , but in their off hours is quite different. Nicotene is one thing , but they should not be fired for smoking on their own time. I think the county is going a little too far on this one , its not like they were using illegal drugs , but for smoking on their own time , where is the line going to be drawn? I smoke , and feel violated by the assinine rules they keep coming up with against smokers. 
Josh Cooper Saturday, December 24, 2011 6:38:30 AM Plain and simple, it depends on what your conditions of employment are. It also matters if you are in a right to work state. Some employers don't allow it as it takes up company time. I worked in a place that smokers could take 15 minutes smoke breaks every 2 hours, but non-smokers couldn't just walk around for the same amount of time, how is that fair to coworkers? Also, many smokers don't realize how their habit affects their patients. I have worked with people that smoke so much that being around them can make asthmatics have an attack. Those that are pro smoke, I don't care what people do at home. I don't think it should be allowed at work. I don't like the smell either. If you do your job and smoke at home, I don't care as long as I don't have to smell it at work from you or on you. 
Ty Constantine Saturday, December 24, 2011 8:10:37 AM Smoking in this day and age, especially when you're a healthcare provider, shows lack of intelligence in my opinion, unless you're actively attempting to quit. Same goes for those who smoke a lot of marijuana. But neither of these should be terminate-worthy offenses, unless they directly affect work performance. Paramedics and EMT's shouldn't be allowed to smoke in public places in uniform, because that projects their lack of intelligence onto the agency's image, making the service (and the profession) look hypocritical and unintelligent. But if you want to smoke on your own time, have at it (just try to quit). Same goes with marijuana - it's "illegal" (laugh), but if its use doesn't affect job performance, employers should ban its use on the job, but not in the home. Alternatively, there's no ban on alcoholism, or prescription drug use, which are far more likely to affect job performance and put the public at rest. This is a silly world we live in! Jake Stein Monday, December 26, 2011 7:10:47 PM Does that mean CAD and pulmonary disease automatically go away when you step outside your house? Sorry to tell you that it doesn't work like that.
These 3 employees had 2 years to comply. 170 others don't smoke, have the same job and don't feel the need to use excuses or bash their employer in public for their own failures.
Do you really think your health, your ability to do your job and your employment status would not change if you were addicted to alcohol or presciption drugs?
Marijuana is illegal at the Federal level. Your employer must obey the law.
Being under educated in health issues has always been argued as a right for EMTs and Paramedics. Luz Marina Rosenfeld Wednesday, May 16, 2012 1:16:51 PM Smoking, well people have choices, they make bad decision for their health, and this is a bad one and all around, you will breath that, so is that everybodies business? I wish no one smoke, but we cannot control that, the only thing we can do is keep educating the public about good decisions for our Health which is #1. 
